I've stolen much of this post from Brian who comments on the Frank the Tank blog but the following link outlines what schools received what from their ADs from 2011-2014:
http://chronicle.com/article/As-Sports-Programs-Get-Richer/235026/
It's a pay site so you may not get access, but here's the gist:
Over 40 athletic departments have paid a subsidy to their school in that time period. The rankings of those payouts are below:
Totals for 2011-2014 (schools gave no subsidy):
UT – $37.1M
OSU – $36.3M
LSU – $19.2M
OU – $11.1M
NE – $9.72M
PU – $4.11M
Net totals for 2011-2014 (donation – subsidy):
UF – $7.31M (25.2-17.9)
MI – $6.17M (7.2-1.1)
UK – $4.71M (8.2-3.4)
AL – $2.38M (25.4-23.0)
So a couple of takeaways for me from this data:
1. If we only gave $4.1M over 4 years, that's a significant decrease from the $5M per year we were giving Cordova.
2. As lbodel has pointed out, there are a bunch of legitimate reasons why an AD would pay a subsidy to the school for things like labor, facility upkeep and usage, sanitation, etc. Those reasons can vary from school to school but I believe the noise essentially cancels out in the comparison to still be material.
3. We are punching in a weight class way above our league.
Bottom line, I think the allegation that our school is using our AD as a slush fund is overplayed. We can debate if roughly $1M per year is still too much but I suspect if we saw the accounting of what that "paid" for, we would be hard pressed to argue the details.
I would've posted this on the FB board where it is more relevant, but I would rather this thread not turn into a bashing session of our new recruits.
http://chronicle.com/article/As-Sports-Programs-Get-Richer/235026/
It's a pay site so you may not get access, but here's the gist:
Over 40 athletic departments have paid a subsidy to their school in that time period. The rankings of those payouts are below:
Totals for 2011-2014 (schools gave no subsidy):
UT – $37.1M
OSU – $36.3M
LSU – $19.2M
OU – $11.1M
NE – $9.72M
PU – $4.11M
Net totals for 2011-2014 (donation – subsidy):
UF – $7.31M (25.2-17.9)
MI – $6.17M (7.2-1.1)
UK – $4.71M (8.2-3.4)
AL – $2.38M (25.4-23.0)
So a couple of takeaways for me from this data:
1. If we only gave $4.1M over 4 years, that's a significant decrease from the $5M per year we were giving Cordova.
2. As lbodel has pointed out, there are a bunch of legitimate reasons why an AD would pay a subsidy to the school for things like labor, facility upkeep and usage, sanitation, etc. Those reasons can vary from school to school but I believe the noise essentially cancels out in the comparison to still be material.
3. We are punching in a weight class way above our league.
Bottom line, I think the allegation that our school is using our AD as a slush fund is overplayed. We can debate if roughly $1M per year is still too much but I suspect if we saw the accounting of what that "paid" for, we would be hard pressed to argue the details.
I would've posted this on the FB board where it is more relevant, but I would rather this thread not turn into a bashing session of our new recruits.
